An ineteresting piece of literature passed my way (thanks Scaly!) today that I thought some might find interesting!

WATCHING THE COLUMBIA RIVER SALMON DWINDLE TOWARD EXTINCTION - ELEPHANTS
IN THE ROOM
>
> COLUMBIA RIVER CONFERENCE IV, March 16 & 17, 2000
>
> Dr. Jack Ward Thomas, Boone and Crockett Professor of Wildlife
Conservation,
> University of Montana
>
> Let me begin with the customary disclaimers. I am not an expert on salmon,
> nor am I as well informed on all the details surrounding the intricacies
of
> the salmon's continuing decline in the Columbia River System as I would
like.
>
> Now, I follow with my "claimers." I spent some ten years of my
professional
> career involved in high-profile roles dealing with spotted owl/old-growth
> issues in the Pacific Northwest. I was involved as a member-usually as
team
> leader-of a series of task forces that started with the consideration of
the
> welfare of a single sub-species (the Northern Spotted Owl) in a relatively
> specific habitat type (old growth forests) and ended up with a plan for
> ecosystem integrity. That plan included consideration of streams that
> harbored dwindling runs of salmon.
>
> These efforts included the Interagency Scientific Committee (ISC), the
> so-called "Gang of Four," the Scientific Team (SAT), and the Forest
> Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT). I then served three years as
> Chief of the Forest Service dealing with implementation of the Northwest
> Forest Plan. In that role, along with Dr. Michael Dombeck, who was Acting
> Director of the Bureau of Land Management, I ordered the Interior Columbia
> River Assessment. I had no idea that the effort would outlive my tenure as
Chief.
>
> I now spend my time as a professor, and have made one certain discovery in
> the process. I find that pontification is much easier and more fun than
responsibility.
>
> Those are my credentials for my pontification for today.
>
> I also have some reputation as one who "tells it like it is," or, more
> likely, how I think it is at the moment. My impression is that I was
invited
> to address you for that reason.
>
> In preparing for this presentation, I made only a cursory review of the
> extant literature. But I did discuss my ideas with ten colleagues who are
or
> were intimately involved, past and present, with the issue of salmon in
the
> Columbia River System. None of them disagreed with the premise that I put
> before them, and encouraged me to "tell it like I think it is"-and added,
> "it is about time somebody did."
>
> I think that many of the shortcomings in the current situation surrounding
> the welfare of salmon in the Columbia System are related to a failure to
> recognize that there are "elephants in the room." If that analogy does not
> ring a bell, I got it from a cartoon showing a group of people at a
cocktail
> party blithely carrying on party conversation, ignoring the fact that the
> columns they were leaning against were the legs of elephants. If they
> recognized the elephants, they would have to react.
>
> Look around you. Squint your eyes just a bit. The elephants are here.
>
> I remember once being in a tour group that was on the Starkey Experimental
> Forest and Range on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest in the Blue
> Mountains of northeastern Oregon. We stood on the banks of Meadow Creek, a
> tributary to the Grande Ronde River, which, in turn flowed into the Snake
> River. There were colleagues on the tour who remembered when there were
> salmon in Meadow Creek. No salmon now came back to Meadow Creek, though we
> were looking at a dramatically improved section of the stream. A short
time
> earlier our research unit had been threatened with a "jeopardy call"
because
> we were using a two-inch stubble height in the meadow to signal the time
to
> move the cows. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) had dictated a
> three-inch stubble height. Someone asked me what I thought of the
situation.
>
> My reply went something like this: "As we stand here talking, the trawlers
> are working right off the mouth of the Columbia, and the sports fishing
> boats and their occupants are catching salmon. But we would not want to
> handle the economic, social, and political consequences of addressing that
situation.
>
> "Whatever salmon escape the nets and the hooks at sea start up the
Columbia
> River and swim through the effluent from Portland and the settlements of
the
> Willamette River. From this point forward they begin to encounter nets set
> by Native Americans fishing in concurrence with their treaty rights. A
> glance to either side of the river reveals an Interstate Highway and a
> parallel set of railroad tracks on one side and a double-lane road and a
> railroad on the other bank. There are dredges opening a channel for barge
> traffic. But, understandably enough, it would be tough to handle the
> economic, social, and political consequences of dealing with those
limiting factors.
>
> "And, whatever fish are left come to the first dam. Some get over the dam,
> and some don't. Then, the survivors swim through the tens of miles of
slack
> water to the next dam, and the process is repeated. Some get over the dam,
> and some don't. This is repeated eleven times before the survivors can
turn
> up the Grande Ronde River headed for the spawning gravels from which they
> emerged. But, clearly, we are not willing to face the social, political,
and
> economic consequences of facing up to the problem associated with
> dams-particularly the dams in the lower river.
>
> "As the fish proceed upstream they encounter agricultural areas where
plowed
> fields stop only where they encounter the stream banks, and the runoff
from
> the fields is laced with herbicides, insecticides, and fertilizer. Pumps
> pull irrigation water from the river and there are diversion ditches.
Roads
> and railroads parallel the stream course for many of the miles from the
> mouth of the Grand Ronde River to Meadow Creek. Cows pound the stream
banks
> on the private lands to the boundary of the Experimental Forest. But,
> clearly, we are not willing to face the social, political, and economic
> consequences of dealing with those problems.
>
> "It is probably not necessary to go through this litany again to describe
> what the smolts will go through as they make their journey to the sea. And
> these would be the very few as might result from a chance encounter
between
> what few salmon might make it back to the spawning gravels.
>
> "So now we stand here and argue. We argue about whether the stubble height
> of three inches is so significantly different from that of two inches that
a
> grazing experiment should be shut down in a riparian zone on a stream
which
> has not had a single salmon return in 20-plus years. What is wrong this
> picture? Something had to be done somewhere to make it seem as if
meaningful
> actions were underway somewhere. And so we were chosen. Why here? Why us?
> The answer seems simple enough to me. There were no social, economic, or
> political impacts of enough consequence to attract attention. We were
relatively weak.
>
> "We are not focusing on the real problems. We are taking on targets of
> opportunity, as regulators are demanded to do something, and it is
directed
> toward those with relative lack of political clout." (small tree farmers,
> small rural landowners and non-corporate farmers, etc,?!!! note added by
Jim Malinowski)
>
> Viewing the long term and continuing gyrations with the issue of saving
> salmon in the Columbia River System is, at the very least, not encouraging
> as far as long-term success is concerned. Actions thus far are similar to
> the story described earlier, as new targets for action are chosen on the
> criteria of limited social, political, and economic impact. The rule seems
> to be: start with the weakest first, and move up the ladder as action is
required.
>
> Unfortunately, most of these efforts produce little or no result. For
there
> is an elephant standing unseen in the room. That elephant is that the big
> problems, the real problems, are ignored as a matter of political
expediency-or, perhaps, reality.
>
> Simply put, as costs skyrocket, the Columbia River salmon continue to
slide
> toward extinction. Simply put, as the struggle labors on to develop
coherent
> policy and approaches between all the players-federal, state, tribal,
> quasi-public (not counting the myriad agencies at all levels)-the salmon
> continue to slide toward extinction. Simply put, as regulatory agencies,
> feeling forced to act under limiting factors, focus on players that are
easy
> targets (and, regretfully, that are relatively insignificant to salmon
> recovery) and avoid dealing with the truly significant factors, the salmon
> continue to slide toward extinction.
>
> One run of salmon after another "winks out" as the fish returning dwindle
to
> zero in spite of the existence of spawning habitat. How, in the biological
> sense, is it possible that there can be any "take" by harvesting (i.e.,
> killing) of salmon that might be upstream migrants in the Columbia System,
> headed for stream stretches where "wink out" is increasingly likely?
>
> Clearly, managers are driven by the Endangered Species Act to carry out
> their roles in the prescribed drama, even if one failure after another is
> the consequence. I cannot think of another instance in the application of
> the Endangered Species Act where such ongoing failure would be tolerated.
> But, even that is not too hard to understand. The erstwhile
> "environmentalists" who took on the issues related to the northern spotted
> owls and other such tough fights simply do not have the heart for this
one.
> They are willing to settle for incremental changes that address
> environmental issues piece by piece, whether or not truly related to
salmon
> recovery. They cannot help but know that many of these actions are not
> likely to reverse the decline of the salmon, but will result in
improvements
> in dealing with mine wastes, abusive grazing, roading, etc.
>
> When they view the potential consequences of the suite of actions that
would
> give salmon a real chance in the Columbia River System, they too ask that
the cup be passed.
>
> Let us examine just a few of the other elephants in the room as we ponder
the fate of the salmon.
>
> Examination of the purposes of the Endangered Species Act is in order:
"The
> purposes of this Act are to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon
> which endangered and threatened species may be conserved, to provide a
> program for the conservation of such endangered and threatened species . .
> ."
>
> The Columbia River System has been so dramatically changed over the last
> century and a half-probably irreversibly-that "conservation" of the
> ecosystem in any semblance of its original state is simply not possible.
> Even draconian actions, such as removal of the lower Columbia dams, are
> almost certainly impossible due to astronomical direct costs and social,
> economic, and political consequences. Even cursory examination of dams,
> hatcheries, barging fish, dredging, roads, railroads, diversions,
effluents
> from many varied sources, agriculture with associated pesticides,
> herbicides, and fertilizers, altered water flows, influences of urban
> development, and varied other impacts, quickly erase any vision of the
> protection of a long-gone ecosystem upon which threatened and endangered
> species depend. Many of the runs of salmon that still exist can be
compared
> to a dying man essentially on full life-support-and still their numbers
and
> range of occupancy dwindle. These pitiful remnants of what once was, not
so
> long ago, but are no more except in dreams, are what Aldo Leopold called
> numena, or the spirits of a place.
>
> For these wonderful creatures were the numena of the wild Columbia. The
> Columbia River of today is a working river. The economic, social, and
> political realities, I believe, assure that it will remain as such.
Undoing
> of what has been done, except for a little cosmetic dab here and there,
does
> not seem within the realm of the possible. The only parts of the ecosystem
> that are reasonably intact are the public land areas-and, oddly enough,
(or
> perhaps understandably enough), they seem to receive most of the attention
> of regulators and planners.
>
> Clearly, chances for survival of various runs of salmon are not equal.
Many
> of the runs have winked out, and the genetic make-up of the fishes in
those
> runs is forever lost. Other runs continue in what appears to be an
> inexorable death spiral in spite of "best" (i.e., politically acceptable)
> efforts. Some runs are in reasonably good shape, and may well survive with
> appropriate management actions.
>
> The perceived inflexibility in the ESA precludes the use of techniques to
> assign limited resources to those runs that have the best chance of
> maintenance and recovery, while ignoring those that are likely doomed. It
is
> time to apply "triage" techniques, i.e., face up to what are likely
> irreversible declines in some runs in order to direct resources to those
> runs where the odds for long-term survival are better with adequate help.
>
> Such an approach would also entail identifying land whose management can
no
> longer be conceived as having an impact on salmon. Regulatory agencies
> should reduce their arena of activity to habitats that can realistically
be
> identified as important to salmon welfare-and, simply put, leave other
folks alone.
>
> Costs of actions should be reported and recognized in a more realistic and
> comprehensive fashion. Costs are not limited to payrolls and expenditures.
> Both direct and opportunity costs are imposed on others-government and
> private-by regulatory actions. Frequently such costs are not accounted for
> and weighed in the balance. They should be.
>
> The political process dealing with the salmon issue is hopelessly confused
> in spite of the best efforts of all involved parties. How could anything
> else be expected? Every entity involved has a different mandate, power
base,
> constituency, objective, personality, source of funding, capability,
vision of scale, and "boss."
>
> I have absolutely no doubt that every "boss" is a person of good will,
> impeccable honesty, and dedication to do the "right thing." I have no
doubt
> that every scientist involved from every agency and from every discipline
is
> appropriately skilled and motivated to do the best possible job.
>
> I am saying that the circumstances that exist could have been derived as a
> platform on which scripts for an old-time Keystone Cops comedy could be
> structured. In spite of all the good people involved, the circumstances do
> not bode well for either developing rational outcomes that will stand the
> test of ESA compliance, or that can be effectively executed.
>
> If past is prologue, there may be lessons that can be derived from the
> experiences of dealing with the spotted owl/old growth/salmon "situation"
> (some might say "fiasco"). First off, it should be clear that the Columbia
> River salmon issue is far more complex-ecologically, politically,
socially,
> legally, and administratively-than its predecessor crisis in the Pacific
> Northwest. Second, there are dramatic parallels in the amount of delay in
> developing a coordinated response and subsequent loss of options as
various
> runs of salmon wink out. Third, the situation was allowed to fester until
a
> series of teams were appointed that were given cover to work through
> appointment of a leader, who in turn was given the authority to work
without
> political oversight to derive and evaluate options for a decision.
>
> Experience with the Interior Columbia Basin assessment effort indicates
that
> to be the case-and reveals that more and more and more assessment does not
> produce significantly different results. In fact, more and more assessment
> and the time required produces rapid erosion of options for
decision-makers.
> Threatened or endangered species are likely to suffer from delay, and
> chances for successful management dim accordingly.
>
> However, continuing assessment and planning does make it appear that
> additional important and essential work is in progress-and, perhaps, even
> more research and assessment is essential prior to a decision. Maybe of
> greater importance for consideration is that drawn-out assessment and
> planning produce delays in making decisions that are to the detriment of
> threatened or endangered species, persons who will suffer as a result of
the
> decisions, and politicians in whose back yards the decisions will have
effect.
>
> So there may be advantages to those who will be hurt or made miserable by
> change-and that makes up a considerable array. Delays can carry one beyond
> the next election, or, simply, put off the day of reckoning.
>
> It may be time to ask: "What do we not understand about the salmon issues
in
> the Columbia System that precludes coming to a reasoned conclusion?" The
> likely answer seems to be "not much."
>
> In looking at the options that are currently under consideration, I find
> none that I believe would satisfy the intent of the ESA. Be that as it
may,
> it seems likely that declines in some runs would continue, and some would
wink out.
>
> On top of that, I believe there is yet another very large elephant in the
> room. That is the question of who, finally, is to make the momentous
> decisions as to how much protection is afforded, and who takes the
economic
> and social consequences. I do not believe that the continuing group grope
of
> regional directors of various political entities and agencies "with a dog
in
> the fight" will produce appropriate decisions. The mix of missions,
> mandates, pressure groups, constituencies, personalities, and political
> loyalties does not yield a suitable cultural medium for the growth of a
solution.
>
> Further, given the complexities surrounding the issues and the almost
> certain dramatic magnitude of the economic, social, ecological, and
> political impacts of any decision, I do not believe that this is a
decision
> that should be made by a bureaucrat or a collection of bureaucrats. Given
> that the issue has international, interstate, and nation-to-nation
> connotations, and in view of the sheer magnitude of the impacts of that
> decision, there is one obvious choice for the decision-maker: the
President of the United States.
>
> There is a precedent for the President to make such a decision in a case
of
> such dramatic import, and under strikingly similar circumstances. One of
the
> ramifications of a decision by the President is that there are no appeals
> possible internal to the administrative branch of government, and the
first
> step in opposition are the courts. Certainly, speed is of the essence in
the
> case of the Columbia River salmon given the rate at which salmon runs are
> declining and the reduction of options implied in those losses.
>
> Given the likely magnitude of economic and social consequences of any plan
> with any real chance of saving the salmon, the President would probably
cut
> the finest possible line in choosing an option that would minimize impacts
> on human welfare while affording salmon a chance for survival. If the
> precedent of the Northwest Forest Plan held, legal actions from
> environmentalists and the tribes could be expected. These challenges would
> relate to charges of inadequate attention to salmon welfare. Those
suffering
> economic damage would charge lack of adherence to process, inadequacy of
> data, inappropriate interpretation of data, or any other circumstances
that
> would preclude institution of action under the chosen alternative.
>
> A loss to the environmentalists or the tribes would require either more
> attention to salmon welfare, with associated increases in social/economic
> impacts, or an immediate appeal to the Endangered Species Committee (the
> "God Squad"). Either event would escalate the speed of resolution with
> associated savings in time, money, and options ("decision space" in the
parlance of the planner.)
>
> Congress, then, would be able to bless the decision by appropriating the
> funds necessary to execute the plan. Or, by refusing funding, veto the
plan
> and open the door for a certain legal action for failure to adhere to the
> requirements of the ESA. Such a "veto" would run the risk of a
judge-ordered
> action that could have dramatic impacts in the economy of the Northwest
United States.
>
> It seems implausible that the Congress would exercise such a "veto"
without
> instituting legislation, predicated on the phrase "all other laws
> notwithstanding," that would legislate a solution to the impasse.
>
> It does not seem possible that the Endangered Species Act was written,
> debated, and passed with any inkling that an issue of the magnitude of the
> Columbia salmon issue would arise. Magnified by the collateral issue of
> tribal fishing rights, this set of circumstances makes the spotted owl/old
> growth issue pale into relative simplicity and insignificance.
>
> So I doubt that there will be any immediate overt recognition of the
> elephants in the room. But, if the elephants are not recognized and dealt
> with, there seems no room for bold strokes to come to grips with the issue
> to even be suggested. For, after all, it is said "the devil you know is
> better than the devil you don't know." And, what official in his or her
> right mind, agency or political, would take a "lose-lose" situation of
this magnitude?
>
> The likely alternative of plodding on down the path that is being followed
> will likely produce continued diminution and wink outs of the salmon runs,
a
> continued buildup in expenditures, accumulating restrictions on landowners
> (whether effective or not), and drawn-out assessments and evaluations.
> Declines in the fish runs may well continue as the inverse of
expenditures,
> with no indication of cause-and-effect relationship.
>
> Maybe it is time for someone to stand up and say loudly "Hold! Enough!"
>
> This ongoing set of circumstances has taken on a life of its own, with its
> own cast of characters-and that cast routinely increases in size and
costs.
> How many people's professional lives, how much occupational energy, how
much
> political and social capital, and how much treasure (direct and
opportunity
> costs) is it rational to spend in a losing game? The salmon continue their
> slide toward extinction, and options disappear as the runs wink out one by
> one-but the debate and disconnects with realities and costs continue to
mount.
>
> We have become too complacent, too accustomed to extant processes, too
mired
> in those rituals, and too addicted to piecemeal "show piece" actions as
the
> Columbia River salmon runs drift, seemingly inexorably, into the shadows
> known as history. There to become, for future generations, one of the
myths
> of what once was in this land near the sea.
>
> One of the first orders I gave when I became Chief of the Forest Service
was
> to "tell the truth" and "obey the law." That made a lot of my fellows
angry.
> I do not think, as a result, many paid much attention, and nothing changed
> much. But there is always hope. I thought it was good advice then and good
> advice now. So I repeat what I said then to you: tell the truth and obey
the law.
>
> The truth is that the situation for salmon is getting worse. The truth is
> that the situation is not likely to improve much unless we start breaching
> dams-and not just the four in the lower Snake River. The truth is that
will
> occur when there is a really cold day in hell. The truth is that there is
no
> acceptable way that we can come into compliance with the Endangered
Species
> Act as it relates to salmon in the entire Columbia River System. The truth
> is that we are simply unwilling to come to grips with the issue that we
> have, probably irrevocably, decided that the Columbia River is a working
> river harnessed to provide the cheapest electrical energy in the
world-and,
> simply, we ain't about to give that up. The truth is that playing games
with
> various combinations of attempts to assuage limiting factors for the
salmon
> will not do the job-and we know it.
>
> If we frankly admit that we cannot obey the law, we are free to do the
best
> we can to save the remnant populations. That can be done through a
> combination of directing money and resources to the places they will do
the
> most good, and letting people off the hook who have nothing to do with
those
> efforts. There should be no shame and much honor in facing the facts and
telling it like it is.
>
> We should do better. The law says so. Our professional ethics say so. Our
> consciences say so as we ponder what the Columbia River would be like
> without its numen. But in my opinion, we will do better only if we, very
> soon, recognize and deal with the elephants in the room.